Richard A. Lococo

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 16, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,000.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitration award declaring September 19, 2022 (the day of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II) a paid holiday under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he failed to consider evidence of historical collective agreements and proclamations relevant to the City's estoppel argument.

However, the arbitrator's interpretation of the bilingual statutory instruments was reasonable.

The matter of estoppel was remitted to the same arbitrator for reconsideration.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of McKenzie J. dated May 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal award made under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following the destruction of her cottage by fire.

The umpire determined the replacement cost based on the respondent insurer's appraiser's estimate of the cottage's square footage, which relied on actual post-fire measurements, rather than the applicant's appraiser's reliance on a pre-purchase valuation report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's decision was reasonable and justified by the evidence, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration decision upholding the dismissal of an employee for a severe workplace safety violation.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably failed to consider the employee's ten years of pre-seniority service as a mitigating factor when declining to substitute a lesser penalty under section 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably interpreted the collective agreement and disciplinary grid, which distinguished between seniority and service, and reasonably concluded the egregious nature of the safety violation outweighed the mitigating factors.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessment of a Bell Canada telecommunications switching station in downtown Toronto.

The Board had reduced the property's current value by approximately 45 percent through an equity adjustment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, relying on a comparison with another Bell Canada switching station.

MPAC argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the provision and failed to apply the correct test for equity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law in the Board's factual determination of 'similar lands in the vicinity' or its methodology for calculating the equity adjustment.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following a house fire.

They alleged procedural fairness violations, bias, and unreasonableness, citing the aggressive conduct of the insurer's appraiser and the umpire's independent site visit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that despite the insurer's appraiser's poor behavior, the applicants had a full opportunity to present their case.

The court held the umpire's process was fair, unbiased, and the resulting valuation was reasonable and intelligible.

The applicant sought judicial review of four WSIAT decisions that denied his claim for Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits under s. 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The applicant had suffered a compensable right shoulder injury but later resigned due to severe non-compensable hearing loss.

The WSIAT found that the shoulder injury was not a significant contributing factor to his wage loss after resignation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT properly applied the 'significant contributing cause' test and its decisions were justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The City of Stratford applied for judicial review of a supplemental interest arbitration award that clarified a provision allowing the City to contract out its fire dispatch services.

The initial award permitted contracting out to 'another fire service', which the arbitrator later clarified meant an 'IAFF represented fire service'.

The City argued the arbitrator was functus officio and improperly relied on mediation discussions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably applied the doctrine of functus officio to clarify his manifest intention, and that the City had waived settlement privilege regarding the mediation discussions.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing her claim for statutory accident benefits due to a two-year delay in notifying her insurer.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by dismissing the claim under s. 55(1)1 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, asserting that s. 32(10) provided the insurer's exclusive remedy of extra time to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32(10) does not preclude the dismissal of a claim under s. 55(1)1 where the claimant fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Boswell J. dated January 24, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 2023 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Township of Carling sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring disclosure of severance and termination clauses in the employment contracts of several municipal employees.

The Township argued the adjudicator erred in finding the clauses constituted 'benefits' under s. 14(4)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than protected personal information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decision was reasonable, adequately reasoned, and properly distinguished between benefits negotiated in an initial employment contract versus those negotiated post-termination.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her discrimination complaint against the respondent college and denying reconsideration.

The complaint arose from a group assignment in a paralegal course where the applicant alleged discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, and creed.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions to be reasonable, noting the applicant failed to link the alleged unfair treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The court also dismissed allegations of adjudicator bias, concluding that an adverse finding does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, a temporary help agency, sought judicial review of ten orders to pay approximately $2.8 million in unpaid wages under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant bypassed the statutory review process before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing exceptional circumstances due to impecuniosity, as the Act requires paying the ordered amount in trust to access the Board review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy before the Board and failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish impecuniosity.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal in part an order dated December 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal two orders.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director to screen out his complaint as frivolous.

The applicant alleged that the police failed to adequately investigate his claims that CSIS was conducting an unlawful campaign of surveillance and attacks against him using directed energy weapons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's decision was reasonable, as the complaint lacked an air of reality and the police have broad discretion in determining whether to investigate.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Hackland J. on February 21, 2023, in the context of an application to pass accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded all-inclusive costs of $2,825 to the respondent.

The appellant slipped and fell on black ice while holding her key fob and reaching to unlock her car door.

She applied for accident benefits, which the insurer initially paid but later disputed by raising a preliminary issue that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the SABS.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the incident was not an accident.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the LAT did not err in allowing the preliminary issue to be raised late, but erred in law in its causation analysis.

The court found the appellant was engaged in the ordinary use of her vehicle and the ice was not an intervening cause, concluding the incident met the definition of an accident.